Information & Ethics Committee on April 11th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

No, that's not right. I'm reading it off a screen, and I'm reading it off a paper here.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett, just to clarify this.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

It should read, “that the chair of the committee be directed to write to the chair of the procedure and House affairs committee and ask the procedure and House affairs committee to consider the matter above, including the witnesses below”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. So the chair will be directed to write to the chair of PROC and ask the PROC committee to consider the matter, including the witnesses, and then the list of witnesses is there.

I'm sorry for the confusion. I'm reading off a paper here.

Mr. Villemure had his hand up.

Go ahead on the amendment, Mr. Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I don’t know if I have to move a subamendment or just ask for clarification, but my comment has to do with the French version; in my opinion, the English version is fine.

When we write to the Chair of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, we can suggest that they consider a specific matter, but we can’t order them to do so. The same goes for witnesses: We can suggest them, but we can’t issue an order. That’s what’s not being translated, at the moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

How can we remedy that? Do we need to change a word?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

We could write: “That the committee chair write to the chair of the PROC committee and suggest that this matter be considered.” Subsequently, we could add, “including, for example, the following witnesses.”

Personally, I would prefer there not be any witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

As you say, the committee may make suggestions, but not demands.

I think the English version is correct. How can we correct the French version? I’m not sure which words to use.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I proposed that the chair write to the chair of the PROC committee and “suggest that this matter be considered”.

The second part has to do with witnesses. If we suggest that a matter be considered and then provide names for potential witnesses, it’s as if we were issuing an order.

Both proposals have to be suggestions. We could say, “including, for example, the following witnesses.”

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

All right, thank you, Mr. Villemure.

As previously mentioned, we can make suggestions, but cannot give orders. We will make the necessary correction.

Mr. Barrett, it's your amendment. Go ahead.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

If there is expressed understanding now to you, Chair, that that's the intent, then I don't think a subamendment is necessary, because Mr. Villemure's clarification is exactly the intent of the amendment.

It is not a direction. It's for their consideration, to consider the preamble and to consider this list, not just because that's the extent of the powers of the committee, but also because that's the spirit of the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

As chair, I'm very clear as to what the intent of the committee is with this motion. I can work with the clerk and the analyst on the appropriate language for the letter, to reflect what the committee is asking me to do based on this motion. That's not a problem.

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather, and then Mrs. Romanado.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I listened to the suggestion by Mr. Villemure and I think that, to be consistent between the English and French, the word “ask” should be “suggest”. Suggérer in French is “to suggest”.

We could say, “write to the chair of the PROC committee and suggest that the PROC committee consider the matter above”, so it would be identical. “Ask” isn't suggère. We should make them both the same.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate that. I will leave it to the analysts and the clerk to suggest to me what should be used, and we will use it appropriately.

Go ahead, Mrs. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I agree with Monsieur Villemure's “suggest”.

I have a procedural question.

Mr. Cooper, Mr. Gerretsen and I sit on PROC. If you were to write a letter to the chair of PROC asking them to consider this, would it not also be appropriate for Mr. Cooper to bring forward a motion of study at PROC that would support the letter? I don't know if it's necessary to include all the names, because I'm assuming he will bring forward a motion with even more information he would like to include. Maybe we will have witnesses, as well.

Maybe we should have a motion that would support asking PROC to continue their study on foreign interference. I'm assuming Mr. Cooper could bring forward the motion to include whatever additional witnesses and information he would like at the appropriate time. I'm assuming he's going to bring a motion, anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I like the path we're on. I feel comfortable with the path we're on, but I wouldn't want to be a chair who directs another chair on what to do. Ms. Chagger can take our letter as a committee under consideration and probably have a discussion with the vice-chairs of the committee about where they want to go with this, and then present a motion at the appropriate time at the PROC committee.

I would leave it at that, from a procedure standpoint. That's what I'm comfortable with, right now. I hope other members of the committee are in the same comfort zone.

I appreciate your intervention.

Mr. Cooper, I saw your hand up. I think it was in relation to this.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

It's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I don't see any other hands.

I think we've come to a reasonable resolution on this. I appreciate the work. First and foremost, I understand the seriousness of this. Second, I appreciate coming together and working to make sure it's directed to a place where I hope it's disposed of quickly.

As Mr. Green said, we have some work ahead of us on this committee, with 17 or fewer meetings. I don't want to diminish the importance of this issue. We are the access to information, privacy and ethics committee. We are an oversight committee that is deemed to hold the government to account. I hope the same can be said if and when this ends up at PROC.

Do we have consensus on the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Housefather, go ahead on the main motion as amended.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Just briefly, Mr. Chair—because I didn't speak before to give my perspective—while the inquiry is on, I do not think it appropriate that the committee be seized with this at this time. I am going to be voting against the motion, because I think this should wait until the inquiry is over. I think that's the appropriate venue for discussions of this. The member mentioned a number of things. The Conservatives have a lawyer at the committee and they can cross-examine the witnesses. These issues can be raised, so I would wait until after.

I also don't agree, necessarily, with the allegations that are set out in the framework, so I'm going to vote against it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate that.

Is there any other discussion on the main motion?

Go ahead, Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I'll add my comments.

I don't have much of an issue with the directive part of the motion. I have an issue with the preamble and everything else in there.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that.

There is no further discussion.

I can sense that we're not going to have consensus on the main motion as amended. I am going to ask the clerk to take a vote.

We have a tie. I vote in favour of the motion.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I don't see any further discussion.

I am going to advise the committee that we're going to take up the study on social media at the next scheduled meeting where that study has been scheduled.

I'm going to adjourn for today.

Have a great weekend, everyone. Thank you.